4 ms·

For what its worth, the GPL (both 2 and 3) says this: > The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from

by Gaelan 5y ago

For what its worth, the GPL (both 2 and 3) says this: > The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. > Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. (The GPLv3 goes on to support some stuff about naming a "proxy" to approve new versions in addition to the FSF.) I'm no lawyer, but I imagine that would prevent glaringly-evil GPLv4 from being upgradable-to.

xxpor 5y ago
Calling v3 "similar in spirit" seems like a stretch. I suppose that's literally true, but what they changed was significant enough that it drove a lot of projects away.
- Gaelan 5y ago
  Also, GPLv3 allows linking to AGPLv3 code; the AGPLv3, in the eyes of some, is a EULA.
  - mhitza 5y ago
    That comparison makes no sense to me. I found one person making this claim on Twitter and Gentoo bug tracker (plus a couple posts in different languages reciting his quoted claim). The part about being able to link AGPLv3 code, I'm not sure what is supposed to emphasis. Care to expand?
  - Qwertious 5y ago
    How is the AGPL a EULA? It's basically just the GPL with the definition of "distribution" tweaked to include interfacing with the specific program over a network.
    - marcan_42 5y ago
      Interfacing to a program over a network is not an act of copying, thus not controlled by copyright. Therefore, attempting to control such usage falls out of the category of copyright licenses (which the GPL is) and into the realm of EULAs (think "you may use this software with at most two network users" - same story). I used to think the AGPL was an EULA based on an interpretation biased by how people think the AGPL works. Upon looking into this more closely, I've realized this is most likely not the correct interpretation. Instead, my current opinion is that the AGPL is just a terrible copyright license that is almost impossible to comply with (most AGPLed projects without copyright assignment violate their own license - if you think this doesn't make sense, what I mean is every contributor violates every other contributor's copyright), while not actually protecting against proprietary SaaSification in any legally enforceable way. I could go into more details, but honestly I've told this story one time too many, so I'll just encourage people to read clause 13, word for word, carefully, and think about what it actually means, not what the FSF has convinced everyone it means.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        You would waste less time and communicate more information by writing up your opinion in full once and linking to it.
- belorn 5y ago
  v3 prevented people from using patent agreements and hardware restrictions as additional restrictions on top of copyright law. They did drove away people who consider such additional restrictions to be beyond the scope of what a copyright license should be able to address. Linus for example have explained in depth how he consider the restrictions of patents and DRM to be bad and counterproductive to the community, but that he doesn't think a copyright license is the right place to address them. If a copyright license is the right or wrong place to address restrictions outside copyright law is an interesting discussion to have, but "similar in spirit" seems to match pretty well. I for one do not care if the legal restrictions sit under regular copyright law, software patent law, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act subsection DRM. They are pretty much similar in spirit.
- lmm 5y ago
  The FUD was much bigger than the actual changes, IMO. I think that everything that v3 banned (using patents or code signing to prevent users from exercising their GPL rights) is something that v2 would also have banned had it been considered at the time.

by Gaelan 5y ago

xxpor 5y ago

Calling v3 "similar in spirit" seems like a stretch. I suppose that's literally true, but what they changed was significant enough that it drove a lot of projects away.

Gaelan 5y ago
Also, GPLv3 allows linking to AGPLv3 code; the AGPLv3, in the eyes of some, is a EULA.
- mhitza 5y ago
  That comparison makes no sense to me. I found one person making this claim on Twitter and Gentoo bug tracker (plus a couple posts in different languages reciting his quoted claim). The part about being able to link AGPLv3 code, I'm not sure what is supposed to emphasis. Care to expand?
- Qwertious 5y ago
  How is the AGPL a EULA? It's basically just the GPL with the definition of "distribution" tweaked to include interfacing with the specific program over a network.
  - marcan_42 5y ago
    Interfacing to a program over a network is not an act of copying, thus not controlled by copyright. Therefore, attempting to control such usage falls out of the category of copyright licenses (which the GPL is) and into the realm of EULAs (think "you may use this software with at most two network users" - same story). I used to think the AGPL was an EULA based on an interpretation biased by how people think the AGPL works. Upon looking into this more closely, I've realized this is most likely not the correct interpretation. Instead, my current opinion is that the AGPL is just a terrible copyright license that is almost impossible to comply with (most AGPLed projects without copyright assignment violate their own license - if you think this doesn't make sense, what I mean is every contributor violates every other contributor's copyright), while not actually protecting against proprietary SaaSification in any legally enforceable way. I could go into more details, but honestly I've told this story one time too many, so I'll just encourage people to read clause 13, word for word, carefully, and think about what it actually means, not what the FSF has convinced everyone it means.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      You would waste less time and communicate more information by writing up your opinion in full once and linking to it.
belorn 5y ago
v3 prevented people from using patent agreements and hardware restrictions as additional restrictions on top of copyright law. They did drove away people who consider such additional restrictions to be beyond the scope of what a copyright license should be able to address. Linus for example have explained in depth how he consider the restrictions of patents and DRM to be bad and counterproductive to the community, but that he doesn't think a copyright license is the right place to address them. If a copyright license is the right or wrong place to address restrictions outside copyright law is an interesting discussion to have, but "similar in spirit" seems to match pretty well. I for one do not care if the legal restrictions sit under regular copyright law, software patent law, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act subsection DRM. They are pretty much similar in spirit.
lmm 5y ago
The FUD was much bigger than the actual changes, IMO. I think that everything that v3 banned (using patents or code signing to prevent users from exercising their GPL rights) is something that v2 would also have banned had it been considered at the time.